Color me shocked. I mean from the administration of the man who said, take the guns first and due process later.

Take the guns first - Trump

Which gun rights group are they referring to?

A few key points tho:

1. Is this an actual registry by design, or a product of recent brain rot jurisprudence that relief only applies to the plaintiffs listed, and thus this membership list is needed to know who does gets said relief?
2. They already appealed to modify the judgment, and even the DOJ lawyer signed on to their appeal.
3. Why? The SAF is a growing activist group, but they’re hardly the bulk of owners. The ATF has been digitizing dealer books of 4473s for decades and has eFile paperwork reporting on lock - if they want to build a registry, they have it already.

This reads to me more like a judge made a call based on SCotUS’s recent goofy rulings around standing and relief, instead of a deliberate end-run registry.

EXACTLY why I never joined a damned gun group. Also why I’m not even trying to find leftist groups.

Srsly Barbie, you’re overdue for some MAGA facework. Tbh your job isn’t secure.

::: AI LINK 😱 :::

https://chatgpt.com/share/e/68ead615-7f0c-800f-9a8e-424f472eab68

What this is about (case background)

• The case is Reese v. ATF / Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explibles, docket 6:20-cv-01438 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
• Plaintiffs: three individuals (originally Caleb Reese, Emily Naquin, Joseph Granich) + organizational plaintiffs (Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Louisiana Shooting Association)
• They challenge certain federal laws (specifically 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and ©(1), and associated regulations) that impose restrictions on sales or delivery of handguns/handgun ammunition, especially with regard to persons aged 18 to 20 years.
• The crux: Plaintiffs argue that banning or restricting sales to 18–20-year-olds violates their Second Amendment rights.

In short: they want the court to rule that these statutes/regulations are unconstitutional (either facially or as-applied to their members) insofar as they deny law-abiding 18–20-year-olds access to handguns.

—

What the recent order says / what’s happening

The screenshot you posted seems to show excerpts of a court judgment or order. Key highlighted bits:

• “Within twenty-one (21) days of issuance of this Judgment, those Plaintiffs … shall provide … a verified list of their members as of November 6, 2020.”
• “Defendants’ proposed judgment appropriately limits its scope to members of the organizational plaintiffs who have been identified and verified … Any injunction that does not include this limitation would be impermissibly vague.”

And the judgment text you posted states:

“The Court hereby declares that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and ©(1), and their attendant regulations, are unconstitutional … to the extent those provisions prevent the sale or delivery of handguns and/or handgun ammunition by and to persons identified in paragraph 2 on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.”

And then: the Court enjoins (i.e. prohibits) enforcement “within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Fifth Circuit … from enforcing … those provisions … to the extent they prevent the sale or delivery of handguns … on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.”

In effect: the court has rendered a declaratory judgment that those statutes/regulations, as applied to certain persons, are unconstitutional. And it’s issuing an injunction (i.e. telling ATF, etc., to not enforce those parts in certain contexts). But: enforcement of the injunction is limited within the Fifth Circuit (Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas) and only for those individuals who are identified/verified as members of the organizational plaintiffs (as of November 6, 2020).

So it’s not a universal, open-ended overturning of those laws everywhere or for everyone. The scope is explicitly narrowed to avoid vagueness and issues of standing.

The court reasoned that granting a broad injunction to unknown persons (i.e. all 18–20 year olds) would be too vague and unworkable, and exceed its authority.

Thus what Brian Allen’s tweet calls a “gun owner registry” is referencing the idea that the plaintiffs must hand over a list of identified/verified members — which, he frames as “forced to hand over its membership list.” That’s true as per the judgment, in limited scope. But framing it as a sweeping registry is misleading: the court is not ordering the mapping of all gun owners or 18–20 year olds; it’s limited to those specific plaintiffs’ organizational memberships.

—

Legal and political implications + caveats

1. Standing and limits
   The court is carefully confining the relief to those who already had standing: individuals or organizational members known or verified as of a certain date (Nov 6, 2020) because courts require parties to show they have a justiciable stake. Broad universal relief risks overreaching courts’ jurisdiction.
2. Circuit / geographic limitation
   The injunction is binding within the Fifth Circuit (Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi). Even if a similar law is in place elsewhere, this order doesn’t directly bind courts or agencies outside that circuit.
3. On the membership list / disclosure
   The judgment requires disclosure of a verified list of members of those plaintiffs (i.e. the organizational plaintiffs) as of Nov 2020. That is a narrow demand in service of defining who gets relief. It is not the government ordering a universal registry of all gun owners.
4. Appeals, further litigation
   This is likely not the last word. Either side (particularly the federal government) can appeal, ask for stays, or push for broader relief. It may be subject to review by higher courts (e.g. appellate courts, potentially Supreme Court). I did not find evidence yet that this is final and unappealable.
5. Mischaracterization risk
   The tweet you showed frames this as some sort of “betrayal from within” — that MAGA built surveillance state. It’s rhetorically strong, but factually the court’s order is more constrained. The “registry” is only of known plaintiffs’ members, not all gun owners. So the tweet escalates, perhaps for rhetorical effect.